The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 marks a regression from the NALSA judgment's framework. Critically analyse with reference to constitutional principles of equality and dignity.

In NALSA v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court held that "sex" in Articles 15 and 16 includes gender identity and that self-perceived gender is protected under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 [1]. The 2026 Amendment, notified on 25 May 2026, replaces self-identification with a medical board recommendation, reopening the very question NALSA settled [2].

How it regresses from NALSA

• Gatekeeping of identity: a board headed by the Chief Medical Officer/Deputy CMO now vets applicants before the District Magistrate issues the Certificate of Identity — converting a right into an administrative permission [2].
• Narrowed recognition: only socio-cultural identities (hijra, kinner, aravani, jogta) and persons with birth variations in sexual characteristics are recognised; trans men, trans women and genderqueer persons are excluded, offending Article 14's ban on arbitrary classification [2].
• Dignity and privacy: mandatory medical scrutiny and hospital reporting of gender-affirming surgeries pathologise identity and strain the Article 21 privacy guarantee; the Parliamentary Standing Committee had itself warned against assessing gender on medical or psychological grounds [3].
• Access to entitlements: since welfare benefits and documents flow from the certificate, exclusion from certification means exclusion from the National Council for Transgender Persons framework's benefits [4].

The counter-view the Court is weighing

• The CJI flagged the danger of non-transgender persons masquerading to capture reservations and welfare — a concern echoing false-caste-certificate jurisprudence [5].
• Stricter, cognizable and non-bailable offences for coercing transgender identity through mutilation or forced surgery address real exploitation, including forced begging and bonded labour [2].
• Petitioners countered that fake claims are statistically negligible, making blanket medical scrutiny disproportionate [5]; the Court issued notice to the Centre and States but declined a stay [5].

The Act's protective intent is legitimate; its chosen means are not proportionate to it. A verification-by-affidavit model with penalties for false declaration would curb misuse without surrendering identity to the State. Restoring self-identification, while retaining the new penal safeguards, would align the law with NALSA and with the constitutional promise of equality with dignity.